Dating Amy

This blog calls itself “The Blog That Nobody Reads” because, by design, we kind of don’t really care who’s paying attention…kind of. But occasionally, we do react to it, to extend gracious notes of gratitude to some of the huge fish in the blogosphere pond, and actually to the miniscule guppies as well, who link to us. And, we do keep an eye on how people get here, and what interests them. When we turn up in a Google search, we pay attention to that which was searched.

Let’s get down to brass tacks. A lot of you aren’t here for the windy political manifesto. Sheri Doub and Erica Chevillar with their teeny-weeny bathing suits, are more your speed. Hey, you have more in common with us than you think.

Well, while you keep that ear out for the boss’ footsteps so you can wiggle your mouse around and look busy, you can read Amy’s Diary over at Dating Amy, the website reporting on the adventures of a lovely unemployed LA-to-Seattle transplant serial-dater, as she talks about her fifty dates. Click on the pic of Amy’s friend, Chad, to go there. You remember the dating world, don’t you? Sure you do. Well, here is Amy’s intro, word for word:

Hi. My name is Amy. Since I became a writer, whether I’ve worked for a dot-com funded by billionaires or an established business presence, you can often find me with tears in my eyes and a cardboard box in my arms. I’ve been laid off several times, of course through no fault of my own, and it’s the lucky city of Seattle that gets to swagger around boasting to its locker-room pals that it has me every day and every night.

One year ago today I balanced my checkbook and realized that I hadn’t had a nice income in quite a long time. I was an entertainment reviewer and before that a music journalist, but really, how many ways can you describe the interior of a fish restaurant? How many bands can you critique before you want to pull your hair out strand by strand? (My personal answer to that is 1,000, by the way.) When I was laid off by the gargantuan media corporation I was writing for, I thought it would be the perfect time to switch to writing about one of my favorite causes: dating. In addition to noticing my own unemployment, I also observed that there was no answer when I shared the news of my new career tack with my boyfriend, as I didn’t have one.

Then I got what seemed like a good idea at the time: Why don’t I look for a boyfriend and document it on the Internet! Stories about a person’s descent into madness are always popular and people will probably want to send me money.

DatingAmy.com is the result — my literal labor of love. I’m going on 50 dates and I’m taking you with me� but only if you promise not to whine “Are we there yet?”

Oh, one more thing. Dating Amy isn’t supposed to be my name. It’s supposed to be like: “Hmmm. I wonder how great and/or awful it would be to be dating Amy. It’s especially disturbing because people from my real life have started calling me Dating Amy like I’m a superhero or a cartoon or something.

Fair disclosure, I’m not dating anyone. I did date, serially, and one of those dates just happened to work out. Since then, I get to laugh my ass off at dating stories that I probably wouldn’t think were that funny if I were still available.

I was dating for ten months from February to December 2004. At the beginning of it, I came out of a committed relationship that lasted a decade, and at the end of it I went into another relationship that happens to be the one I’m in now, and will last an eternity. Relatively speaking, my most recent exposure to “the scene” was like the blink of an eye. But I know how to notice stuff…maybe I’ll write about that stuff someday. For now, you’ll just have to burn that company-time on Amy, who is much prettier than I am, and better at that whole “brevity” thing anyway. See that picture to the left? That’s Amy. Not me. I’m an ugly dude. I’m not dating, and if I was, you’d have to wait a long, long time for me to go on fifty of ’em.

Three to One

So how are the elections going to shake out?

I admit I’ve been a little bit of a Kerry-style flip-flopper on this thing. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I noted how bad things looked and I reverberated this sentiment two months later. And of course yesterday morning, my optimism rebounded, not so much because of Republican competence but because of Democrat incompetence in the one thing Democrats are known to do really well: public relations. I would defend myself by saying, Kerry-style again, that my message has Always Been Consistent Back To Day One. 1) Democrats have a decent, but still remote, shot at taking over the House; 2) they can’t even think about the Senate; 3) the House will be decided based not on the answers the two parties bring to the table, but by the questions voters feel like asking.

Well, an Associated Press/Ipsos poll says that the elections are all locked up, and the Donks are going to take over both houses of Congress. Americans are going to vote for Democrats three to one. Three to one! At least, that is how the story is being promoted. Is there anything to that? Why, yes there is! Quoth the first paragraph of the story…

Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November. With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

Oooohhh…kay…now then, to the meat of the poll results:

The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.

Not surprisingly, 81 percent of self-described liberals said they would vote for the Democrat. Among moderates, though, 56 percent backed a Democrat in their district and almost a quarter of conservatives 24 percent said they will vote Democratic.

Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters those who are undecided or wouldn’t say whom they prefer. A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican.

Er, wait a minute. That’s a ten-point lead. That’s not three-to-one. Where’s my three to one thingy?

I see, it’s in the fourth paragraph from the end.

Overall, only 27 percent approved of the way Congress is doing its job. Lawmakers get favorable marks from 36 percent of conservatives, 28 percent of moderates and 17 percent of liberals.

Whoops!

There’s your three-to-one. See, you round up a hundred of us at random, 27 of us are going to like the job Congress is doing and therefore vote for the incumbent who is a Republican, and 73 of us are going to detest the job Congress is doing and therefore vote for the challenger who is a Democrat. A third of 73 is 24+1/3, which is just shy of 27, so that’s your three-to-one.

The deception factor is obvious. The poll specifically asks respondents who they are planning to vote for, a Republican or a Democrat. For anyone wanting an answer to that question, the answer is that Democrats lead by eleven points right now. “Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.” That right there is your answer. Everything else is a red herring. Question answered.

There is no need to apply fanciful and misleading conjecture to the only-partially-related question of congressional approval. The story that is worth reporting, here, is that 27 is something of a nadir compared to historical trends involving congressional approval ratings. And that could mean something…it could. But to say three out of every four of us want Nancy Pelosi to be the new House Speaker, which is the way this story is being spun today…well, it’s just a notch or two shy of outright fraud.

You know what the real story is here? That Republicans are definitely in trouble compared to where they should be. At least, according to “On Your Left Nut” kind of thinking. No sane and knowledgeable man is going to throw his left testicle on a block, and assert, with a forty-pound sledgehammer held menacingly over his ‘nard, that we have a more important issue to worry about compared to the threat of Islamo-terrorism. He certainly isn’t going to say he’s more worried about old people on Social Security, getting their benefits cut, than he is about another terrorist attack (the latter has precedent, the former does not). He’s never going to say he’s genuinely concerned about the Religious Right turning the United States into a theocracy, or about having the police barge into his bedroom to arrest him because he’s having sex with his wife in the wrong position.

Now will he try to persuade anyone, with his family jewels depending on the verity of his statements, that another terrorist attack would be just fine with him as long as rich old people with summer homes and Winnebagos can find another way to rob thirty-something apartment rats of their federal payroll withholdings, so that said wealthy old people can get more Viagra for free. In fact, as of today, there is not one single Democrat talking point with a suitably strong relationship to The Truth, to merit a Democrat vote when & where something critically important is at stake. The Donks can only motivate voters to support them, by saying a whole lot of cock-and-bull stuff that sounds good. None of it anything on which you’d bet a body part.

The poll says the American landscape is experiencing — I would say suffering, since this phenomenon never leads to anything good — a paucity in “On Your Left Nut” thinking. Fifty-one percent of us, give answers to pollsters that we wouldn’t give in situations where our actions have a direct relationship to ensuing events, and ensuing events have a direct relationship to the personal well-being of ourselves and those we love.

It all comes down to that old saying: “A Republican is a Democrat who got mugged.”

Thing I Know #16. A man’s determination to punish the guilty tends to wax and wane with his prospects for living amongst them.
Thing I Know #127. The measure of a person’s happiness and success is proportional not to his ability to form opinions, or to his tenacity in sticking to them, or his outspokenness in arguing them or to the number of people who agree with him, but to the sense of personal responsibility he places in having them.

Trees In Antarctica

From Don’t Go Into The Light…

SYDNEY (AFP) – Trees could be growing in the Antarctic within a century because of global warming, an international scientific conference heard.

With carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere set to double in the next 100 years, the icy continent could revert to how it looked about 40 million years ago, said Professor Robert Dunbar of Stanford University.

“It was warm and there were bushes and there were trees,” he told some 850 delegates in the Tasmanian capital Hobart, the national AAP news agency reported.

Here’s a thought. Suppose, for a moment, that climate change includes both warming and cooling. And it’s man-made. Temperature goes up and down, post-industrial-revolution, like a whore’s drawers. Global warming, fifty years later global cooling, fifty years later global warming again.

Antarctica has ice, then trees, then ice again. Ocean levels rise, then sink, then rise again. Up. Down. Up. Down. Up. Down.

Earth adapts. Animals adapt. People adapt. Through it all, on the advent of every new cycle, the international press and the United Nations go absolutely bollywonkers apeshit. It becomes routine after about a century or two, but they still keep going apeshit.

Wouldn’t this be completely consistent with the behavior of the human race up until now? To be confronted with fairly mundane challenges, and act, theatrically, as if the world is coming to an end? Food for thought.

On The Plame Lawsuit

We learn via the Good Lieutenant at Mein Blogovault, of the rather thorough new-asshole-ripping taking place in Valerie Plame’s lawsuit against Rove, etc. Said ripping commences at Captain’s Quarters and is repeated at Flopping Aces.

A complete copy of the complaint can be viewed (PDF) here.

I should point out, in one of my shameless attempts at self-aggrandizement, that all of this has been predictable for nearly a month now.

I’m still waiting to find out what the whole thing that started it all, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” commentary in The New York Times by Joseph C. Wilson IV, July 6, 2003, has to do with anything. Ambassador Wilson writes “It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.” The President said in the State of The Union address, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Sought. Africa. Ambassador Wilson comes to doubt such a transaction ever took place in Nigeria. Transaction. Nigeria. Wilson “spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people” and he thinks he proved a negative with regard to a transaction out of Nigeria…that is a leap of faith, by itself. How do you prove Saddam didn’t seek anything from the Continent?

The meat of the complaint, of course, is the “conspiracy” of administration officials to retaliate against Wilson by outing his wife. The complaint makes mention of several people who think that’s exactly what happened…verbal statements, written statements, published articles. It seems to contain no evidence that this took place, either direct or circumstantial, although Section 2, and the 5th and 8th Causes of Action, are based on this.

So those are my two things: How is the Wilson/Plame couple related to anything, and does the lawsuit have merit. The sheer quantity of bunny-trails and red herrings, side issues, so to speak, is most impressive. The Wikipedia entry on the “Yellowcake Forgery” is this long. The entry on the “Plame Affair” is this long.

You know, I’m thinking that in itself is a conspiracy of sorts. This whole thing is supposed to be propping up the neo-religion of “Bush LIED!!!” I’ve noticed when you ask one of President Bush’s critics what the lie is he is supposed to have told, it’s got to do with this statement in the State of the Union, and it doesn’t involve quite so much an intent to deceive, so much as President Bush doing something different from what the Bush critic would have done, if the Bush critic were the President.

The whole story has surpassed, in complexity, what the public-at-large could reasonably be expected to follow. Once again, I’ll just say what I think everybody’s come to conclude on their own: This artificial “complexifying,” if you will, is by design. Simple deliberation would lead to simple conclusions: Saddam Hussein was a thoroughly unacceptable pre-cancerous boil in the ass of world affairs and needed to be taken down, he had “sought” ingredients for weapons of mass destruction from all kinds of places, Joe Wilson is a shameless attention whore and it looks like his wife is too. The controversy is being made much more complicated, not for the sake of gleaning more relevant facts, but because someone somewhere doesn’t like those conclusions.

Cryo-Kennel

Don’t forget, all you pet lovers. Curb him when taking him out for a walk. Make sure he’s up on his innoculations. Also that he’s properly neutered, or spayed, as the case may be. And don’t ever leave him at home when you travel, without freezing him in the Cryo-Kennel from Eureka.

I mean, do I have to tell you everything? Three easy payments of $49.99, small price to pay for your animal’s peace of mind when you’re off who-knows-where, or blowing things up on the Fourth of July.

Oh Gawd, this is just too funny. A week ago, I had put up a post called What Is A Liberal? in which I defined three rough scenarios which have a distinct liberal solution and a distinct non-liberal solution. I then explored the principles that the liberal solutions had in common with each other. One of my scenarios had to do with the owner of a business, with a limited amount of capital for hiring, being able to take on only three entry-level laborers instead of four, with a minimum wage being recently hiked. I said…

Liberals have an answer for that, too. They “do studies,” and then come out and say things like “our study found no measurable negative impact on employment.”…This is not an isolated situation; with issue after issue, liberalism upholds a disturbing pattern of insisting that I stop thinking for myself, even in matters of simple multiplication and subtraction, and outsource my thinking to other people.

People who do studies. People who promote studies. People who are not in the office with me, sweating over the figures with me, helping me to figure out how to pay the bills with the money I have. People who, so far as I know, have never transferred money from a personal savings account to meet a payroll. Those are the people telling me to forget about math, put the calculator down, it will all work out.

then…

Guns: Get rid of them. Think you need them for your personal protection? Don’t think about it. Living out in the sticks? Wife pregnant? “911” has a thirty-minute response time? Hakuna Matada. Our “studies” say you don’t need the piece. Ditch it.

It’s all got to do with things mattering less. Less thinking going on. People shutting up and doing what they’re told. What they’re told by…oh, what does it matter who. Stop asking questions.

So…the conservatives use their noggins as crystal balls. Raise taxes, and people will turn into cheapasses. Take guns away, burglars and rapists will break into whatever house they want to, knowing there’s no guns in there. Make a bunch of rules about not being able to fire teachers, and you’ll be left with a bunch of incompetent teachers. It’s all cause and effect. Liberals get hold of “studies,” and if the study is something they like, they promote it, otherwise they’ll sit on it.

And as if some divine cosmic entity said to itself “Hey, that Morgan guy needs some help proving his point,” look what happens here.

Our friend Misha, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, has been getting into it with some lawyer asshole named Glenn Greenwald. The Rottweiler has been enjoying himself thoroughly, by the way. All this stuff makes for a great read…a little off-topic from where I want to go with it.

Anyway, Greenwald goes off, in his own blog, on the Rottweiler. And his point is…well, it is as follows…

Prominent right-wing blogger today calls for the murder of Supreme Court Justices – the Right fails to condemn it

If your only source for news was reading right-wing blogs, you would have thought that the most significant world event in the last few days was that some crazy woman who nobody ever heard of before (someone by the name of “Deb Frisch”) left some vile comments on Jeff Goldstein’s blog, a venue which itself is devoted to some of the most vile, deranged and psychosexually disturbed commentary that can be found on the Internet. Virtually every right-wing blogger spent the weekend focused on this solemn and grave matter, milking it for all it was worth. Many implied that this unknown commenter was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals, and exploited the drama to argue that the “Left” must approve of these comments because they didn’t denounce the comments enough times or with enough vigor.

The blogger Misha of the blog Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is one of the most linked-to and popular bloggers in the right-wing blogosphere. He’s the 42nd most linked-to blogger on the Internet, and he is in the blogroll of scores of right-wing bloggers, such as Michelle Malkin and Captian’s Quarters Blog. He wrote a post today discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan and here is what he said:

Of course, this is the same Supreme Court that earlier decided in Kelo that private property rights only matter as long as a private company doesn�t offer a better deal, above or below the table, to local authorities, so one shouldn�t really be surprised. The unelected, black-robed tyrants have a long history of not giving a fig about the Constitution if they don�t like what it says, not to mention a long tradition of usurping the powers of the legislative and executive branch by ruling by judicial fiat. . . .

Try doing anything to those mutilating darlings of the Supremes in order to extract life-saving intel from them, and then wait for the Supreme Whores to decide that you were �humiliating� them in doing so.

Five ropes, five robes, five trees.

Some assembly required.

He’s advocating that the five Supreme Court Justices in the Hamdan majority be hanged from the neck until they’re dead. His homicidal formulation is a play on the more standard call of the Right for American journalists to be hanged — “Journalists. Rope. Tree. Some assembly required” — another death call which, it just so happens, Misha also issued just a few days ago.

Okay. Before we go further, I’d just like to point out another thing about liberals. Greenwald is making a point, here, that is made by conservatives all the time. “Hey, this guy on our side got treated such-and-such a way, that guy over there got treated so-and-so a way, it’s not fair.” Both sides do this a lot. But the style is substantially different. Greenwald, if you go over to his column, does not leave this as an open-ended question, the way conservatives do when they use the same technique. He doesn’t say, “Can anyone give me a rational reason why the example I’m playing up, should be played down, and the example I’m playing down, should be played up?” Actually, there are only two questions in this whole post: “What happened?” and “Why not?” His premise, that Misha is as threatening or is more threatening than that psycho twit-burger Dr. Frisch, is something he will not open to question and cannot open to question. You aren’t supposed to be noodlin’ that one out. Should you choose to do so, and should you come to a conclusion different than his, you are simply outside of Greenwald’s intended audience. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Anyway, maybe I shouldn’t have done that. Continuity of thought is important here. Think about the studies. Liberals and studies. So anyhoo, five days after my comments about liberals and their stupid studies, this comment section is open under Greenwald’s post, and all these Greenwald friendly left-wing half-wits start posting. In total, 253 last I checked. ++guffaw snort++ check out #10.

This is bad enough, but couple your report with this headline from Raw Story:

50 year study says conservatives ‘followers’

In an interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, former Nixon counsel John Dean explained a largely unknown 50 year academic study. The data shows that conservatives are much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is so rich. Liberals are independent thinkers and conservatives are followers. And yet, the liberals are the ones who can’t form an opinion about how to burp, fart, sneeze, take a crap, or hang the new roll of toilet paper afterward, without a “study” telling them what’s what and how high to jump and when to come back down again.

ZERO THOUGHT. I would say it’s so bad, that all they’re doing is getting together and saying “hey, here’s some fresh meat you can use in case a conservative corners you…” without chewing on any of the fresh meat. But it isn’t even meat! You can’t crack this study open, you can’t find out why it took place over fifty years, you can’t find out how it was affected during those fifty years, you can’t even find out who did it. Oh sure you can, maybe, with difficulty. But rest assured of this: The liberal who wants you to “read” the study — in other words, simply adopt the conclusion of the study, as interpreted by the liberal, as your own opinion — won’t be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you if you choose to do this. And he damn sure won’t volunteer anything making it easier for ya.

Liberal ideas simply aren’t built to be challenged. It’s a twentieth-century, techno-industrial ideology built for a world in which mass-production and mass-communication were the leading edge, brand-new novelties. As such, the points within that ideology are built to be fanned out, broadcast, disseminated, in a single direction: Outward. It’s not a dialog. You’re just supposed to take this huge picnic basket full of poo sandwiches, grab an armload, and start distributing them without peeking between the bread slices to see what’s in there.

Update 7/15/06: This is Installment 3 of 3. The first installment is here and the second installment is here.

Selectively Equal

U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy has ruled that Georgia’s new voting law violates the Equal Protection guarantees of that state’s citizens.

Let’s go into a ilttle background. In October, Murphy sat in judgment of the constitutionality of a state law requiring voters to prove their identities. He struck this down because, hey, not everybody has a driver’s license, not everybody has a National ID card, and among the people who lack both, there are a lot of poor people. If you charge money for an ID and require the ID to vote, this effectively becomes a “poll tax” and is unconstitutional.

So the Georgia legislature went back and made a new law with a whole bunch of free stuff in it. If you can’t get a driver’s license, you can have a ID card. If you can’t afford one, we’ll pay for it.

Not good enough, says Murphy. It still violates equal-protection laws. How it does, now that everything’s free…I’m not sure.

Courts block Georgia’s voter photo ID law
Rulings mean voters won’t have to show them, at least this year
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Posted: 6:49 p.m. EDT (22:49 GMT)

ROME, Georgia (AP) — The same federal judge who threw out Georgia’s voter ID law last year blocked the state Wednesday from enforcing its revised law during this year’s elections.

The ruling came less than two hours after the Georgia Supreme Court denied the state’s emergency request to overrule a state court order that blocked enforcement of the new photo ID law during next week’s primary elections and any runoffs.

U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy’s ruling, which he delivered verbally from the bench, was much broader, also including the November 7 general elections and any runoffs.

If the rulings stand, Georgia voters will not have to show a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot this year. The state’s primary election — which would have been the first election for which the IDs were required — is scheduled for Tuesday.

Murphy said the state’s latest attempt at requiring voter photo IDs discriminated against people who don’t have driver’s licenses, passports or other government-issued IDs.

“That is the failure of this legislation as it stands,” he said.

In October, the judge rejected a more-stringent voter ID requirement, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax because of the fees associated with getting the required ID. This year, the Legislature passed a law that made the IDs free and available in all counties.

Murphy commended lawmakers for addressing problems with the previous version but said more work is needed. The latest version still denies citizens equal protection under the law, he said.

But, “The court never said there cannot be a proper voter ID law,” he said.

The state can still appeal the ruling.

Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue and other supporters of requiring IDs had argued they were needed to prevent election fraud. Civil rights groups challenged the law in both federal and state court, arguing that it discriminated against poor, elderly and rural voters.

During a day of testimony before Murphy issued his decision, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Neil Bradley argued that making voters go to county registrar’s offices to get a required ID was an inconvenience that did nothing to address fraud at the ballot box.

I have a question. And a theory. Actually the question is based on another theory, so I have two theories, one of which is in support of a question.

First, the theory that does not support a question. I don’t think the civil rights groups give a fig about the poor, elderly and rural voters. Don’t these people need to go somewhere sometimes? Don’t they need to go see doctors? If so, don’t they have a civil right to get that done? Where’s the lawsuit to force the doctor to make a house call?

Second theory, the one that does support a question. Theory: If I’m a Georgia voter, and there is fraud taking place — nobody’s sticking their neck out, here, and saying there isn’t — a vote cast in opposition to my own votes, fraudulently so, violates my own Equal Protection guarantees. Effectively, I’m not being allowed to vote. My vote is being cancelled out by someone else’s. That’s what is supposed to happen in a democratic society, but in this case, that someone-else isn’t a real person. Equal Protection is supposed to have something to do with voting, and my votes are being systematically nullified.

So the question is obvious. What about the civil rights of legitimate Georgia voters? It seems Judge Murphy, here, has forgotten how the voting process works. Somehow, if your vote is nullified because you weren’t able to get your voter ID, your equal-protection guarantee has gone unfulfilled, but if your vote is nullified because it was countered by some dead guy, or a doppleganger, or an illegal alien or a little-green-man, that’s all okay. For now. So we’re selective about which defeated vote represents an equal-protection violation. If we aren’t going to be selective, then you know what? This year’s election will have to be cancelled. After all, equal protection is equal protection…we’re deserving of protection for our constitional guarantees, all of us, or else none of us are.

Why This Won’t Work

Democrats have an attack ad out. Hat tip, Another Rovian Conspiracy.

They’re going to get their asses kicked elsewhere for using images of our war dead to make political attack ads. So I will leave that to others. I would just like to make mention of what impresses me, and why I think this is so incredibly misguided, as well as what I would change if I were a Democratic image consultant.

I do this because I know there aren’t that many Democrats who read my blog.

First up, we have the “mass murder and overtime parking” problem. You attack someone, and you indict them for a big transgression as well as a little one, you end up looking like exactly what you are: Some guy making a list, and laying his sense of perspective at the altar of making the list as long as possible. If President Bush is getting troops killed needlessly, I really don’t give a rat’s ass if plants are closing. And if he’s hurting the environment to the extent that our continuing existence is placed in jeopardy, I don’t give a rat’s ass if he’s getting troops killed. To include all this stuff, and to make a priority out of cramming it all in there, is to demonstrate that whoever has made a priority of including the lesser offenses, must have intellectual doubt about the validity of the greater ones.

Secondly, this country has a rich history of challengers attacking incumbents over the status quo, and ultimately winning the subsequent election. What do those episodes have in common? In January, I conducted a quick review of Bill Clinton’s State of the Union messages to capture his best public-relations ideas. Clinton has the distinguishing historical characteristic of having used his SOTU messages to campaign against himself during the entire eight years he was in office. The only speaking line in the commercial linked above, which goes to Clinton, nods toward his old SOTU habits but does not go far enough. What’s missing?

He always found two things about the status quo: One of which was good, and another of which showed room for improvement. Both of those things were vital. The second of the two, which shows the benefit of the action proposed, is universally indispensible and has been kept in the commercial that I’m bashing now. The first of the two, has been pitched overboard. There’s no sugar in the status quo. There can’t be. Thou Shalt Not Say Anything Good About President Bush.

Someone who makes commercials for Democrats, has determined this is a harmless concession to make to the Michael Moore and Move-On-Dot-Org crowd. They’re simply wrong.

You see, when you refuse to say anything good about your enemy, this does so much more than present your position as being irreconcilably opposed to him. It betrays a singlemindedness, a lack of perspective, a kind of two-dimensional thinking. As it happens, in 2006 the “mainstream” Americans who don’t give a crap about Democrats or Republicans, and actually decide our elections, are terrified of that. Of this concern, you might say the litmus-test question would be “If President Bush had a program that kept anyone from getting cancer anywhere and made everybody’s farts smell like chocolate and made hundred dollar bills fall out of the sky, and Democrats were elected to Congress, would they vote to end the program?” And from this commercial, it’s looking like the answer is yes. If Bush’s name is on it, it goes.

This is not a trivial concern. Our nation’s Treasury is bursting with unanticipated revenues, cutting this year’s deficit by $130 billion dollars and proving that tax cuts can generate more revenue. Proving it. Heads swivel toward the Democrats to explain how this can be so, and so far all they’ve come up with is “uh…well, $296 billion is still a lot of money.” So we put these yokels back in charge and then what? They roll back the tax cuts, and the revenues fall again, so that the yokels can put on some ads in time for ’08 that say we have to hike taxes even more?

How much more effective it would be to put on an ad saying “President Bush deserves credit for bringing down the deficit with his tax cuts but we’ll never see a surplus again unless we cut spending.” Democrats want to be the fiscal-responsibility party…why not go that route? Ah well, we know why, it’s because they’re beholden to the “Bush LIED!!!” crowd.

That’s the issue in the campaign this year. People are more worried about Democrats having sold out to the far-left, than about President Bush selling out to the far-right. A lot more. Democrats have so much to gain, if they could simply reassure the public that they are, truly, a party of loyal dissent. If the reassurance is factually there to be made, they will eventually provide it. But I don’t think it is. And I must say, in support of my own feeling on the subject, it’s intesting how much mileage they’ve chosen to gobble up while leaving this question in place.

Apologies in a Frog Suit

Now this is a great editorial. It is an epitaph on the dead-as-Dillinger Plamegate fiasco. Suitable for digesting if you know nothing, or would like to start fresh and pretend you know nothing. It isn’t great because I happen to agree with it; it is great because, if I did not, I would be strongly persuaded toward changing my mind. Some three-quarters or eighty-percent of it, or thereabouts, is compliant with the Wikipedia NPOV (Neutral Point of View) standard.

Well, perhaps that is overstating it, since the moonbats who have been salivating for years now over the prospect of Karl Rove being “frog-marched” down the White House steps, are going to be sulking and raspy-sighing and shifting in their seats during that eighty-percent. And with a little more diplomatic wording, perhaps some of that would be preventable. Such an exercise in diplomacy, however, would be hostile to the truth: The truth is, there never was anything to this. You can’t break a law by blabbing the name of a guy’s wife, to a reporter who already looked up her name in a “Who’s Who.”

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Couric Proves It

It’s a badly-worded TIK, certainly not as well-polished as some of the others, and I’ve never commented on it before. But there’s a lot of truth in it: Thing I Know #27. Information has a tendency to flow one-way, which greatly increases the effort involved in noticing little details, while one is engaged in attention-whoring.

What does that mean? It means you can’t learn things while showing off. Or if you do manage to get it done, rest assured you didn’t do it very well.

Around the Memorial Day weekend, I had let Katie Couric have it, and jotted down my primary objection to what she’s made her career into, with respect to what we call “news”: You Report It, Or You Are It. One or the other; can’t be both. So which one is Katie? Well, I hear of lots and lots of folks who know what Katie’s been doing lately, what she’s wearing, where she’s going, how much she’s making. Seldom to never have I heard anyone say “I’m going to watch her to find out what’s going on.”

Well, now via Newsbusters we see she’s on a tour, winding through the midwest to find out about all those people in fly-over country. Or, is she telling the people about herself? Which way is the information flowing here? Let’s try to find out…

It was a well-orchestrated media event that excluded the media, a private invitation-only meeting in the brand new Minneapolis public library designed to connect network news’s biggest new deal — The Katie — with “regular folks” from Minnesota.

Eh, we don’t know. There’s an effort to “connect.” Let’s read further.

Those “folks” meeting Katie Couric, newly of CBS news, included former City Council President Jackie Cherryhomes, public relations guru Jon Austin, St. Thomas journalism professor Mark Neuzil, and numerous recognizable faces from government and social service agencies, as well as students and “soccer moms.”

Couric’s “Eye on America” road show passed through Minneapolis on Wednesday in a visit that was part fundraiser, part celebrity peek-a-boo, and part of the “soft sell” campaign by CBS News to introduce Katie Couric to the nation.

Ah. There it is! So as to the notion of a “listening tour,” bollocks to that. Katie isn’t “listening,” she’s telling. Marketing a product.

Nothing wrong with that. Although, my personal preference would be that it be called a “talking tour” or something.

And then something amazing happened…

“It seems like something the president would pull,” said Jane Kirtley, University of Minnesota ethics professor. “At a time when the news media is trying to gain the trust through transparency, to have a meeting closed to the media and the general public is unbelievable.”

Publicity is fine, Kirtley said, “but what really offends me is, let’s not pretend for a minute this is going to get the pulse of Minnesota.”
:
Matt Bartel, owner of the popular MNSpeak blog also was issued an invitation by WCCO, although the station apparently didn’t recognize the name Bartel (ubiquitous in Twin Cities publishing circles) or his business, until the event was about to start.

“They pulled me out of the auditorium and told me that they’d become aware of the fact that I had a blog,” Bartel said. “They said, ‘We don’t want you to participate,’ ” then offered him a choice: surrender his notebook or leave the event.

“I wasn’t going to give them my notebook; I had business stuff in there.”

A compromise was reached – the ‘CCO staffer confiscated Bartel’s pen instead.

Not that there was much to take notes on anyway, Bartel said later.

“No one said anything all that remarkable. And even with the interesting things that were said, I can’t imagine it would make any difference.”

Okay, I read the whole thing. I’m really having a tough time trying to figure out what the object of this exercise was…besides marketing. And if it was a marketing exercise and nothing more, the idea that people can show up to something like this and leave with the impression that it was anything else, or even read about it and form the impression it was anything else…well, that just flabbergasts me.

We’re talking big, big money here. And yet, I just can’t understand how, or why, anybody would want to get their news from this woman. Or if they think this is something they want to do, why this antipathy toward bloggers, and the general public, isn’t highlighted a little bit better.

Why aren’t you allowed to take notes? More stimulating to my curiosity, is, why isn’t there some kind of “official line” on why you aren’t allowed to take notes? Mister Minnesota College Professor Guy compares Katie to President Bush. Okay, I’ll bite, and I acknowledge I’m a little green around the edges where appearances by the President are concerned. Can you not take notes when he appears somewhere? I’ve seen people doing it. I can’t imagine he’d be able to show up somewhere, have the Secret Service start stealing pens, and that I would end up not hearing about it. So, does this comparison really hold up?

Happy Morning

Via Cellar Door, a popular culture & advertising blog, we get this vision of a “Happy Morning.” Toward the end, you find this has to do with brewing up a pot of Folger’s. What a long, strange road to get there.

Kinda weird.

Lehnert’s Great Speech

Lots of reasons to check out Buck’s blog today. For one thing, he likes my stuff so you know he has good taste, and he’s helped expand my horizons with this thing called Radio Paradise. Also, he treats us to Lileks delivering a well-deserved smackdown to that little punk-ass bitch Joel Stein. But the Numero Uno reason you should head out to Portales today, is to pick up on this great speech by USMC Gen. Michael Lehnert, to The Military Affairs Advisory Council in San Diego, Monday, via Cassandra at Villainous Company.

Some of you may recall almost exactly two years ago when a four man sniper team from 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines was killed on a rooftop in Ramadi. It made news because sniper teams aren’t supposed to get ambushed and because an M40A1 sniper rifle was now in the hands of the enemy.

Over the next two years, that rifle was used against Americans and we wanted it back. Last week, a 21 year old Marine sniper from 3rd Battalion, Fifth Marines out of Camp Pendleton obseved a military aged male videotaping a passing patrol of amphibious assault vehicles near Camp Habbaniya. After radioing the patrol and telling them to stay low, the Marine watched the man aiming a sniper rifle that looked remarkably like his own.

He killed the enemy sniper with one round to the head. Seconds later, another insurgent entered on the passenger side and was surprised to see his partner dead. That hesitation was enough time to allow Sgt Kevin Homestead age 26 to kill the insurgent before he could drive off.

When the Marines went down to inspect the scene, they saw that the sniper rifle was one of their own. It was the same M-40A1 sniper rifle looted from the 2/4 sniper team exactly two years earlier.

That’s just a tiny snippet I plucked out to whet your appetite. It is nowhere close to the whole thing, nor the balance of everything worthwhile therein. Go. Read.

This Is Not A Dating Service

Via CDR Salamander, we find out about this story in the Washington Post about the Naval Acadamy in Annapolis asking an unusual question. I’ll let the Post story speak for itself…

Chris Ledoux thought he might sponsor a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy. Opening one’s home as a safe haven to a plebe, or academy freshman, is an Annapolis tradition and a point of pride to many Annapolitans.

But Ledoux got no farther than page four on the application — and a pair of questions that required him to state whether he would prefer a plebe of a particular religion or race.

He called local politicians last week to complain about the questions, which struck him as inappropriate for a service academy to ask. Word spread to local civil rights leaders, who were incensed. A controversy was born.

“This is not a dating service,” said Ledoux, an Annapolis resident. “This is the federal government. And when the federal government is asking questions like, ‘What race do you prefer?’ they need to be careful.”

Now here’s the strange thing, and honestly, I don’t know why we put up with it. Government goes into Afghanistan by force. It engages in battle. It captures someone. It takes that someone to Gitmo, or to some secret location, and starts waterboarding him. Scandal, scandal, scandal. And presumption-of-innocence galore…nobody, anywhere, with even the slightest internal knowledge of this character, is going to assert this guy is innocent of anything or that there’s even the scintilla of possibility he might be innocent, and from the cable television channel to the water-cooler we’ll finger-waggle each other and tut-tut each other that he’s a “detainee” and it’s improper to call him a “terrorist.” But most of all there’s the secrecy. How DARE the government not divulge, nay, shout from the rooftops that they had this guy.

Everybody, in that scenario, wants an “open” government. A “transparent” government.

You ever ask a government bureaucrat, or follow the misadventures of a journalist as he proceeds to ask government bureaucrat, what is done with these forms that have race-checkboxes on them?

It’s freakin’ impossible to get a straight, consistent answer. I don’t care if you’re talking about job applications, or college admission forms, or any kind of program enrollee form. Typically, the only nugget of information you can mine from the exercise is “this is not a quota.” To simply ask, then, what exactly a quota is, is to re-submerge in the endless labyrinth of contradictory answers, homina-hominas, and no-comment and you’ll-have-to-ask-him-over-there.

Not that there are too many possibilities here. In all likelihood, USNA is probably conducting this the way Ledoux said, as a dating service. My question is, who exactly thought this was a good idea? Laws against the same kind of discrimination, with regard to the actual housing itself, are fairly bursting at the seams. It comes time to sponsor a midshipman, and suddenly segregation is all okay again?

Flesh! Oh, No! VII

To protect our lives and our property, government has an interest in enacting and enforcing laws. It also has an interest in promoting culture, as in, a certain culture. It should work to make sure some cultures die, and other cultures thrive.

Now, I’m sure, with regard to my Point #1, most people would agree, and with my Point #2, most people would ask if I’m out of my freakin’ gourd. What’re you talkin’ about, Freeberg? Government has no business promoting religion over secularism, or stripes over plaid, or…whatever. Hey, you know now that I give it a little extra thought, that’s right. Personal preferences about the weird things people do, so long as those things don’t break the law — are irrrelevant to the job. This is deeply ingrained in Americana. Any time you fire up the DVD player and watch a movie about the law, whether it’s “Dragnet” or “CSI” or “Monk” or the latest feature film just out of theaters, the story isn’t complete if someone doesn’t look Johnny Law square in the eye and repeat that classic line: “Are you going to arrest me, Detective? Because if not, you have no business (being here) (keeping me here).” And as we all know, that is the way government is supposed to work. It’s against the law, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, buzz off. We don’t care if you find it worthy of comment, Mr. policeman/government official. And we really don’t care if you personally dislike something. The guy wearing a dress…the woman piercing her eyebrows twenty-two times…the Wiccan bowling club.

Government is culture-neutral. You work in government, you’d better get ready to serve people, in all their makes, types, shapes and sizes. And that means leaving them alone, so long as they abide by the law. Promote no culture, punish no culture.

We all know that to be true. It’s the American way.

So you know what, all you culture-neutral types? You’re right. I was wrong. I humbly apologize. I just don’t know what got into me.

(Morgan clears his throat.)

L.A. shoots down �Hooters for Neuters�
Bikini contest fund-raiser for pet spaying, neutering program raises hackles
Updated: 2:07 p.m. PT June 28, 2006

LOS ANGELES – The city of Los Angeles’ Animal Services Department will not accept money from a planned bikini contest fund-raiser called “Hooters for Neuters.”

Animal Services Director Ed Boks reconsidered Tuesday after city officials said the event was degrading to women. He said the department will bow out of the July 13 fund-raiser at a Hollywood nightclub hosted by the Hooters restaurant chain. The money was slated for the department’s spay and neuter programs.

“It certainly was not my intention to offend anyone,” Boks said in a statement. It wasn’t immediately known whether the event will still be held.

Although the fund-raiser was not sponsored by the city, a promotional flier was posted on the Animal Services Department Web site. The original flier showed a bikini-clad woman, but the latest version shows a dog wearing a T-shirt that says “Hooters for Neuters.”

City officials earlier had sharply criticized the decision to participate in the event.

“Are we going backward here?” City Controller Laura Chick said. “We are a city with all kinds of progressive programs that empower women and end discrimination in the workplace, and now we’re being connected with a Hooters bikini contest. It isn’t right.”

Councilwoman Jan Perry said the department’s attempt to be creative in telling pet owners to sterilize their animals “crosses the line.”

“I was surprised and amazed with the photograph on the flier, and I don’t think it projects a good image for the city of Los Angeles,” Perry said.

Boks said that the owners of Hooters approached him about the fund-raiser a month ago. He said the ads were made without consulting the department.

“When somebody steps up and says they want to help your agency raise money, your inclination is to say ‘Yes,'” Boks said. “But, we probably won’t be involved in any future bikini contests.”

I love this line about ads being made without consulting the department. That’s just great…someone was thrown under the bus, and whoever did the write-up was kind enough to the scapegoat to let him languish in anonymity. Some poor schmuck answered the phone, someone who probably reports directly to this limp-wristed spineless Ed Bok character, thought he was doing a great thing for the department accepting the help of a mature and solvent business interest like the Hooter’s restaurant chain. Next thing he knows, he’s being measured shoulders-to-toes for the guillotine because Jan Perry and Laura Chick threw a hissy fit.

Is it against the law, or isn’t it?

I demand equal time. I demand that, the next time a business or a foundation asks to help the Animal Services Department, and it’s got something to do with frumpy women who promote the extreme brand of man-bashing feminism, and intimidating good-looking women from wearing shorts and bikinis, that their offer of help be soundly rejected. The very next time that situation comes up. Oops! My mistake! The situation doesn’t come up at all! Man-bashing, bikini-hating feminists just aren’t that nice.

Poster at right taken from a similar program in Salt Lake City, UT (click to enlarge). I wonder why the officials in City Hall there didn’t say something. Uh…perhaps they had more important things to think about, like their JOBS?

Thing I Know #55. Anyone objecting to the presence of a young lady in a skimpy outfit, or her attire, is someone I don’t want to know. I can think of several reasons for this objection and none of them are the least bit healthy, helpful or benevolent.

Chariots Of The Bush-Bashers

Thing I Know #1. Very few people who have four-wheel drive have any reason to expect they’ll need it. Ever.
Thing I Know #28. People who drive great big cars don’t mind following other great big cars, but they absolutely have to get out from behind a little itty-bitty car even if it involves passing over a double-yellow line.
Thing I Know #72. I don’t understand what’s going on with driving cars. So many people like to “brag” about their ineptitude with computers, but nobody ever confesses to their own poor driving skills.

I was just noticing there are an awful lot of letters to editors of this-newspaper or that-newspaper about George Bush and his wretched oil buddies skimming off the top and gouging customers, and some of these letters are even sophisticated enough to make some commentary about supply-and-demand. This shows that as of the tenth grade in high school, they were still paying attention. It also shows they understand when we all gulp away at the gas pump, burning more gas than we need to, without resolving the supply issues, we just make it worse.

But nobody ever seems to be bragging about how many miles-a-gallon they get. Nobody’s bragging about having a four-banger, or a three-banger. Like they did last time we had a gas crisis, thirty years ago.

I thought this was odd. But I have a rule around here: When you leave things undefined, you leave room for someone else (me) to fill in the details.

So I thought it would be a fun exercise to pair these folks up with what I thought they might be driving. Why not? I can’t prove it’s them, but I can’t prove it isn’t them. Let’s go.

Charles writes to the Kansas City Star: “Pursuant to a recent comment comparing the price of gas to buying soda pop: What is the writer thinking? There is absolutely no comparison.

“When I purchase $6 worth of pop, it will last me approximately two months. However, when I purchase $6 worth of gas at the same price, it will last me about two hours. On the other hand, comparing gourmet coffee to the price of gas is very similar. Depending on whether or not you are a coffee freak, you could still purchase enough gourmet coffee to last up to a year when comparing that to the price of gasoline.

“My credit card bill for the purchase of gasoline runs approximately $400 per month. I cannot even imagine spending that amount of money on pop or gourmet coffee!

“There is no mention of the millions of people who have to drive back and forth to work, much less us elderly people who have to have gasoline to go back and forth to doctors, hospitals, etc.”

Gary writes into the Kitsap Sun: “While oil companies are bringing in record profits, as a way to help us with high gas prices, the Republicans in Congress want to give everyone $100 and open ANWR for drilling. Why is the GOP�s answer to everything tax cuts and trashing the environment? Why don�t they actually deal with the problem instead of shifting the burden to future generations?

“One of the government�s primary functions is to maintain fair competition in the marketplace. After years of conglomeration, there are only five oil companies left controlling the market, and there is little to no competition. It�s time for the government to do its job and break up these oil companies in order to maintain healthy competition in the marketplace, which will result in lower prices. It�s been done before; In 1911, under the populist Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. government broke up the Standard Oil company, which at the time controlled 64 percent of the market, into 34 smaller companies.

“But will this happen? Not while the oil companies are stuffing the pockets of politicians, and not as long as we have an oil man in the White house. And people wonder why gas prices are so high …”

Phillip’s wife poses proudly, at left, with their new Explorer. He writes to the Times-Herald Record Online: “In the June 14 edition of the Times Herald Record, there is an article on why gas prices are higher in Orange County than Ulster and Sullivan. In the article, Robert Sinclair Jr. of AAA New York says, ‘Stations in busier areas, on highways or at major intersections, tend to have higher prices. Where demand goes up, the price goes up.’

“Isn’t that admitting that the oil companies are charging the gas stations a higher price just because a lot of people shop there? So he is saying that if there is more money to be made, they will jack up the price? Is this not the definition of price-gouging? Does Sinclair believe the general public is so unintelligent that we will accept this?

“It also states that corn is used to make ethanol and the government requires its use in Orange County because of high amounts of emissions. They say bigger population makes for more pollution, so we need ethanol, but not in smaller populations. All emissions are pollution. It boils down to they will do and say whatever they need to, so they can justify their greed.

“If all this was true about the prices going up, then how did ExxonMobil have a surplus of billions and give a severance package of millions to their retiring CEO? Everyone needs to let it be known we aren’t going to drive all over looking for lower prices and we will not tolerate this insult to our intelligence. How much is enough? We need to stand up and do something instead of “grin and bear it” as Sinclair says we should.”

Derek, who recently became the next owner of the 1985 Chevy Suburban you see to the right, writes into the Daily Press of Ashland WI with a great question that I’m sure nobody’s thought of before: “What about the oil reserves?

“Has anyone noticed that George Bush and his clan of right-wing conservatives have been obsessed for years with drilling for oil in Alaska? Well, their proposal has many flaws.

“First off, drilling in Alaska wouldn’t give any immediate relief to the already high gas prices. It would take 10 to 15 years before we would see any benefits from it. By then God knows what the price of gas will be. We need a drop in the prices now, not a decade from now. I don’t think Bush knows what it’s like to pay $3 a gallon for gas. If he did, he wouldn’t come up with these plans that wouldn’t help anybody in the near future.

“Secondly, over 1 million acres of wildlife refuge could be destroyed. What would happen to the poor animals and the environment they live in? They would lose their habitat and probably lose the will to survive. Not to mention that there are species of animals, such as polar bears and seals, that couldn’t live anywhere else. Does Bush care about all that? No, I’m guessing he’s drooling at the thought that he found another way to line the oil man’s pocket.

“Third and lastly, there are other options! They can put pressure on OPEC to lower the price or they can flood the market with reserves. He probably doesn’t want to upset his oil buddies, who back Republicans in elections, by producing a plan to lower the prices. Life, as the Alaskan animals know it, is at stake.”

Donald makes a brilliant point to the News-Record of Greensboro, NC. His souped-up monster truck is shown at left. “The following was taken from Market Watch Newsletter: “Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) reported a 32 percent increase in net income to $7.64 billion, compared with $5.79 billion a year ago.” That’s $7.64 billion profit for three months.

“Why does the government allow oil companies to continue to rob us at the gas pump? Could it be that Bush wants to keep all his oil company buddies happy? Just joking.

“All companies are entitled to make a profit, but this is outrageous with gas at over $2.25 per gallon. No company should be able to make that much profit on a product that we all need. Maybe that’s the point � we all need it, so they can charge what they want to. Maybe we could get New York’s attorney general to look into this one.”

Herbert, who just realized his life-long dream of purchasing two Hummers so he could park them side by side (right), pointed out to the Kansas City Star that there’s no way anyone can make a profit in the billions without gouging customers. “I read with interest the article concerning the interviews (11/10, Business) with the heads of the different oil companies. But now that they say they didn�t gouge the public, everything has suddenly gotten quiet on the subject. How stupid do they think the public is?

“In my view, there is no way a company can declare an $8 billion profit and not have gouged the customers. After all, profit means monies retained after all expenses have been deducted from gross income. And the congressmen conducting the interview just accepted their answers. There must be some truth in the notion that we have the best politicians money can buy. If we are so short on fuel and in danger of running out, why do we export so much oil?”

Bruce, just in from bringing home the brand-new diesel fun-buggy you see at left, writes in to the Berkeley Daily Planet to let them know the oil companies are ripping us off: “The oil companies are ripping us off, big time. Each quarter, their profits are record profits; meaning that each quarter, their profits are more than ever before. They blame high gas prices on the price of crude oil, but their obscenely high profits show this to be a lie. It is simple greed.

“We need energy independence. That means more investment in solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy. I don�t trust the oil companies to make those investments, and neither should you.

“We need a retroactive Obscene Profits Tax on the oil companies to redirect funds toward energy independence. It is time for Congress to show some political courage.”

Now, I don’t have any logical reason to believe the educated guesses I’ve made about the chariots of these windbags, are correct guesses. For all I know, they’re driving renovated three-cylinder K-cars from the eighties, or hybrids, or solar-powered converted lawnmowers.

Why aren’t they saying so? I’m forty years old this weekend. That means I can remember the last time we went through this. And that’s what people were doing. People bellyached about gas prices, obscene oil company profits, blah blah blah, and you either thought Jimmy Carter was screwing everything up or he was “handed a raw deal by the Ay-Rabs,” or both. But before you commenced with the complaining, there was this culturally-required preamble. “My family and I are doing all we can, we just traded in the (blank) on a (blank).” And maybe there was something about “We have to have the truck because my husband needs it for his work.” Except if that applied, the truck was mostly aluminum, it never had more than four cylinders, and a good strong man could push down on the hood and get it rocking good enough to tip over.

Last time we had a gas crisis, that’s what a “truck” was. Now look at the freeway. Just look at it. What you see roaming the asphalt, doesn’t look too different from the pictures I’ve included above, right?

A tiny car, as I was just getting old enough for the learner’s permit, was a status symbol. This newer situation is all bollywonkers. People are complaining about gas prices and “obscene profits,” and everything I’m seeing out there on the roads, is big enough to squish me without even knowing I’m there.

I get 37 miles a gallon. What are these whiners getting?

Just For Fun

Via Boortz: What can you do more quickly, watch this flash cartoon beginning-to-end, or figure out what’s going on? Drop me a line if you can crack that nut.

Gerard Van der Leun, who is not being paid proper respect if I simply say “he is a good writer” since he can write well enough to raise the dead without half-trying, has another gig. He’s the editor of Pajamas Media. He gave us a generous spike of traffic at the beginning of this month, for which I did give credit, but I was going to work up a pictogram of the results like I did a month previous when the Rottweiler did the same thing. Someone’s deserving of this, since Pajamas b-a-r-e-l-y surpassed the Rottweiler spike. In so doing, the Pajamas referral set a new traffic record for this, The Blog That Nobody Reads.

Unfortunately, an application crash sent the first draft of the pictogram to oblivion, and with the hectic events of the holiday I didn’t quite get around to making a second draft until just now. Cool beans. Bad news is, the scrolling nature of the Pajamas Media home page means that the mention of the Blog Nobody Reads has scrolled into their archives, therefore, most of the hits have scrolled as well. Good news is, as you would hope, a good chunk of that traffic has decided to hang around. You can see throughout June, a hundred-visit day was a rarity, and a month later, it’s fairly commonplace for us. More of a rarity when we fall short of that.

Although we don’t pay much attention to who’s watching, we are nevertheless grateful. I also learned something. The Blog Nobody Reads has an informal policy that George Carlin’s Seven Words You Can’t Say, may from time to time pop up in the text of a post, but headlines are supposed to be kept pristine of such vulgarities, restricted to the milder territory ending at “bitch,” “damn,” “fart,” etc. (The “Look At Me, I Can’t Park For Shit” series is exempt from this rule because…well, the way these assholes park, nothing else really does an adequate job of describing it.)

Now, I took it as a given that the four-letter-plural describing a female’s mammary glands, which rhymes with the word “grits,” was not among the Carlin list. This is one of those things where you’re shocked to find out you’re wrong, even though the person who reveals that you’re wrong (my long-suffering significant other), is shocked you’re wrong. Someone could have won a hundred dollars from me on a bet about that, quite easily. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge nobody got in trouble. Hope nobody did.

Supply Side

President Bush says the budget deficit is now projected to be $100 billion less than originally thought, and his tax cuts get the credit.

President Bush touted new deficit figures Tuesday showing considerable improvement upon earlier administration predictions, saying it shows the wisdom of his tax cuts.

Bush himself announced the figures — a task that for the most part has been left to lower-ranking administration officials in the past. The new figures show the deficit for the budget year ending September 30 will be $296 billion — much better than the $423 billion that Bush predicted in February and a slight improvement over 2005.

Okay look carefully on the debate we’re having. Watch how it’s being slowly transformed. It’s not at all unremarkable to find mention of the “Discredited Laffer Curve” — we’re supposed to be in a state of debate about whether there is anything to the notion of Taxable Income Elasticity. Even more ridiculous than that, is if we’re not in a state of debate about such a thing, we’re supposed to have decided against the notion. Taxable Income is rigid. You raise a billion dollars with a one percent tax rate, you raise it to two percent, you’ll have two billion dollars, take it to the bank. Sure, nobody comes out and says that outright…but you haven’t got long to wait before someone says “such-and-such a program is underfunded, we need to raise taxes.”

But weirdly, the almost-but-not-quite official information repository Wikipedia contains nothing about outstanding controversy in the Taxable Income Elasticity entry. The closest it comes, is this…

Critiques of the Laffer Curve

Conventional economic paradigms acknowledge the basic notion of the Laffer curve, but they argue that government was operating on the left-hand side of the curve, so a tax cut would thus lower revenue. The central question is the elasticity of work with respect to tax rates. For example, Pecorino (1995) argued that the peak occurred at tax rates around 65%, and summarized the controversy as:

Just about everyone can agree that if an increase in tax rates leads to a decrease in tax revenues, then taxes are too high. It is also generally agreed that at some level of taxation, revenues will turn down. Determining the level of taxation where revenues are maximized is more controversial.

That’s all you get. There’s no mention of a “Long discredited Laffer Curve,” even though, as demonstrated above, you can find mention after mention of that silly phrase simply by entering it into a search engine…mentionings by people who think they know what they’re talking about.

There ain’t nothing to it, folks. It’s just a game of Telephone. The Laffer Curve holds true, holds strong, and is proven fact.

And we’re on the “right” side of it. President Bush got tax cuts through Congress, and in so doing raised revenues. It’s just a fact.

Now, back to the subject of how the debate is morphing. We can’t have a debate, anymore, about whether cutting taxes raise revenues, or whether it is possible for such a thing to happen. We can’t have that debate anymore…because if we did, it would be too short. So watch what the lefties do with this. We’re going to have a debate, going forward, about whether $296 billion is a big number. Nevermind that that’s a relative thing…nevermind that, if you’re going to make it relevant to the discussion, you have to compare it to $423 billion and ultimately answer “er…well, nope.” No, we’re about to have a debate on whether $296 billion is big.

Just watch.

But meanwhile, keep your eye on the ball. The primary debate, the don’t-move-the-goalposts debate, is on whether tax cuts work. And they do. In order to say otherwise, and pose something that will remain durable throughout multiple scenarios, you have to assert that when private citizens are allowed to keep more of their money, they do something with that money that’s unproductive or counterproductive compared to what the government would do with that same money. Like, throw it down a garbage disposal, or set it on fire or something.

That’s nuts. We form companies and hire people, that’s what we do with our money. If we lack the material station in life to do this, we put the money in IRAs or 401(k)s, and in so doing, turn the money over to other people who are going to do exactly that.

Tax cuts work. They simply do. By even debating whether it is so or not, or putting up with others who want to challenge it by rhetoric-over-reason, we debase ourselves.

How To Get Traffic

One of the recurring themes here at The Blog Nobody Reads — indeed, one of the reasons we call ourselves that — is that when you say something in public, you have the option of trying to get people to pay attention to you or you have the option of saying something worthwhile, helpful, and accurate. You may do both, and you may try to do both…but only awkwardly. You can’t really give both of those objectives your all. You can’t serve two masters.

Here is a sterling silver example of what I’m talking about. Remember our friend Deb Frisch? She engaged in what was only called a “debate,” and never really was one, essentially, just posting a lot of hatred and invective and crap on the site of Protein Wisdom. Frisch was…well, what happened to her is what The Blog Nobody Reads calls getting STWF’d, which means, something compels you to quit your job and go Spend Time With the Family. The public is to be led to believe this is a sudden itch between your ears — in this case, Frisch’s altruistic desires to protect her bosses from the quickly escalating scandal — but according to the reality upon which a reasonable person would be willing to gamble important things like money and body parts…no. It wasn’t an itch between the subject’s ears. She was fired. For all practical purposes, she was let go. No knowledgeable and thinking man will throw his ‘nards on a block and assert anything different.

Now, in addition to getting STWF’d, we have a new verb. Getting “Frisch’d”. Which means to get STWF’d because of your own damnably poor judgment in posting borderline-illegal comments on the “innernets”…in your own name.

That’s the Frisch saga. That’s the main body of the story, and it’s pretty much done. Ah, but the noodly appendages of the story are still sprouting out, and will be for the foreseeable future. How interesting those noodly appendages are.

This brings us back to the subject at hand; the latest noodly appendage of delicious anecdote, just goes to show why we here at The Blog Nobody Reads, aren’t in it for the attention, and seldom make mention of things like traffic. (We do, on occasion, out of gratitude to the generous blogger-brethren who bring it to us.)

Well…get this. Six-Meat Buffet has a screen scrape of Deb Frisch’s Sitemeter reading. This is one of the tools that bloggers like me, can use to track readers like you. When I make reference to the notion that most of the traffic here is a bunch of Google searches for Erica Chevillar’s bikini pictures, this is how I know that to be true. Creepy, huh?

Anyway, this is the kind of “spike” you see, I guess, when you threaten to molest a two-year-old, and make references to the toddler being murdered. I mean, you know, once you lose your job over it and the “blogosphere” starts talking about it. Kinda interesting.

Take a look at that. Zoom!

Does the attention mean something, personally, to Dr. Frisch? Read her comments and judge for yourself. Is The Blog Nobody Reads terrified that it will start threatening babies if it starts to pay more attention to who’s paying attention? No, not really. Come to think of it, you can’t really say The Blog Nobody Reads is above the whole attention-whoring schtick, because frankly, we’re not. But it just goes to show. Just because people are watching you, doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve got something worth saying.

It’s hard to keep your eyes off a wreck; it’s even harder to keep your eyes off a wreck happening in slow motion.

Ann Ann Coulter Coulter Vindicated Vindicated

Poor Rude Pundit. The enthusiastic left-wing blogger, about whom I had written over the Memorial Day weekend, just doesn’t know what to think. On Saturday, he wanted to know “is it enough to get Coulter’s book recalled and her column cancelled?” And “It” would be the allegations involving Coulter’s plagiarism in her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. This exuberant comment trailed his weekend item All Coulter Plagiarism Allegations in One Post (Bumped Up For Your Weekend Reading Pleasure). Well, I did have some pleasure with this over the weekend. I’ll just lift one of these items at random and make a comment about it; note that the comment will be applicable, whether you find it meritorious or not, pretty much through the entire list. Let’s see, this one happens to be from one of Ann Coulter’s columns, and the Rude Pundit documents it here (warning, link name has naughty language in it, clicking could be NSFW).

Ann Coulter Quote: “A photo of a woman breastfeeding an infant, titled ‘Jesus Sucks.'”

From The Flummery Digest: “One otherwise tame photograph of a woman breastfeeding an infant was titled ‘Jesus Sucks.'”

Mmkay. Tricky thing about this, is that two items of documentation are using simple language to describe a common fact. The fact is a singular, tangible noun. It is a singular instance. It is an object. To avoid this kind of “plagiarism,” you would have to grab the original piece you’re trying not to plagiarize, in one hand, Roget’s Thesaurus in another, and skim for synonyms. Both works use the word “infant.” Infant has synonyms. Coulter, in not citing the Flummery Digest, should have used a word like “baby.” Or she could have used the word “suckling”…although “suckling” is what the baby is doing, not what the mother is doing. Furthermore, most editors would change “suckling” right back into “breastfeeding” because the word “sucks” is in the same sentence, a few words down. That’s a no-no. She could have used “captioned” instead of “titled.” As for “Jesus Sucks,” well, that’s a quote.

The idea that the Flummery Digest is the original inspiration for Ann’s writing, likely as it may be, technically, is conjecture and nothing more. Some would reasonably assert that it isn’t even a likelihood, the three-fer described above notwithstanding. After all, how many different ways are there to describe such a thing.

By Friday, Ann Coulter got two unlikely allies: Kos himself, and Josh Marshall.

TPM Muckracker has an itemized list of Ann Coulter’s supposed plagiarism, and sorry to say, there’s not much there.

Coulter is a lot of things, but it doesn’t look like plagiarism is one of them.

Update: Josh Marshall:

To me personally, some of the examples/accusations seem strained — simply similar statements of the same basic facts. And sometimes there are only so many ways to describe one set of facts. In other cases the similarities of the wording strike me as hard to see as a coincidence. Especially when there seem to be multiple instances of similarities in the same column coming from the same source.

What these examples show is that Coulter is a lazy writer who rips off other people’s research, but stealing someone else’s arguments isn’t “plagiarism”. It’s just being a lazy, unimaginative writer.

At that time, Crown Publishing Group, publisher of Godless, had already dismissed the charges; Monday, United Press Syndicate, which carries Coulter’s column, followed suit. And this is what has Rude Pundit in a tizzy. To say nothing of an impressive state of cognitive dissonance. Remember, Rude Pundit? You had her over a barrel, and her book was going to be recalled? As you can see by his title, that was then and this is now…

Did You Honestly Expect Any Other Outcome?(Updated):
Universal Press Syndicate, which allows Ann Coulter to inflict herself on about 100 newspapers a week, has rejected charges of plagiarism against Coulter. Said Lee Salem, Universal Press president, “There are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism.” Also, he said, “Universal Press Syndicate is confident in the ability of Ms. Coulter, an attorney and frequent media target, to know when to make attribution and when not to.” ‘Cause attorneys would never make a “mistake” like plagiarism, now, would they.

Yeah, the system was stacked against you from the get-go. That’s why you were so sure this putt would sink, even when cooler heads like freakin’ Kos were out there, saying it just isn’t so.

Now, you see the pattern here in the way a liberal mind works? Coulter, assuming she did indeed draw upon the sources that were supposed to have been “plagiarized” — and that’s a leap of faith — might have cited those sources. Or, she might have elected not to. United Press Syndicate says, in sum, deciding not to is a reasonable decision. So these are both reasonable decisions.

You may do A.

You may do !A.

A liberal comes along, decides if he wuz you, he’d do A.

You elected to do !A.

Scandal.

It’s enough to inspire a third installment of “What Is A Liberal?” (Installment I, Installment II). Good Lieutentant is hoping I work up such a thing. If and when I do, whether this is the subject or not, better-than-even-odds Rude Pundit will be the focus of that third installment.

Let us sum this thing up: Rude Pundit had an opinion on whether there was shenanigans going on here or not. Kos had a different opinion. Kos was the more reasonable of the two. One for the history books, folks, and it says something unflattering about the Pundit.

Sensenbrenner Watch

James Bostwick, site admin at Newsblog Central, caught me off-guard although he didn’t really mean to do it. He was looking for a bio for the new Staff Page there. I saw his own bio had this nice structure to it, so I just read it in and customized the entries to my own answers. Like we used to say in software development…just what the customer asked for, not what he wanted. Well anyway, the product got shipped, so to speak.

So that first question, made me think. Favorite politician. Yeah, that’s tough; easy to figure out who you don’t like. Who did I like. Well, I’ve always liked Sensenbrenner and Weldon, but of course they aren’t mine, so I had to do some research before I actually entered them. At least I had to with the man from Wisconsin.

So I went looking, and came across this really cool gripe page. As soon as I found the lame complaints against Sensenbrenner, I knew he was my man. Like for example, get a load of this one.

Real ID Act Will Cause Really Big Problems

Jim Sensenbrenner’s “Real ID Bill” has now become law, and most Americans will be aghast when they find out what changes it will bring. Do you look forward to your periodic visit to the Division of Motor Vehicles to renew your driver’s license? Well, break out the champagne, because that ritual is going to become longer and more involved.

Rep. Sensenbrenner wants you to provide proof of your identity and legal residence in the United States when you get or renew your license. But there are problems, as explained here:

States fear the new rules may force applicants to make more than one trip to motor vehicle departments, once to provide documents such as birth certificates that states must verify and a second time to pick up the license, state officials said.

But you won’t be the only one enjoying the new system. Under this law,

by May 2008 every state will be required to contact the issuers of birth certificates, mortgage statements, utility bills, Social Security cards, and immigration papers before granting a driver’s license. States will also have to keep copies of those documents for seven years.

And who will pay for all this? It gets even better:

Cheye Calvo, of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said the bill imposes big costs and sets an unrealistic three-year deadline for states without giving them a voice in the process. Congress estimated it will cost about $100 million to purchase the necessary equipment to meet the Real ID Act’s demands, but Calvo said the real figure is likely to be $500 million to $700 million.

“We don’t have a whole lot of confidence that the money is going to materialize in the federal budget to pay for all these tedious new mandates,” Calvo said.

Sensenbrenner thinks his new law involves just standing in line for a few more minutes, and that will prevent thousands of people from being killed by an airplane attack. Wrong on two counts!

He, like many politicians, is totally out of touch with the life of regular people. (I think the DMV staff does a fine job of processing customers relative to the meager amount of resources they have, but my last renewal took almost two hours. What are the chances that F. James sits around that long?) And terrorists may well be in this country legally or at least have good forged documents to present to the harassed folks at the DMV. This law will not help prevent terrorism as much as, say, protecting nuclear power plants.

Yeah, you got it. Illegal aliens are getting drivers’ licenses, so a new law is passed that you have to prove you belong here before you can proceed with the process, and here comes the crying. Wah, expensive, wah, extra paperwork, unnecessary, it will never work, wait in line, wah wah wah.

I knew there was something about him I liked.

For those who can’t quite catch on…this is kind of like saying “The United States must stop doing xyz because people around the world don’t like us.” The rhetorical question that remains unanswerable, is, if we stop doing xyz, who dislikes us today who will start liking us when we stop doing it? It’s the same situation here. If the DMV just waves people right on through, not bothering to verify citizenship or proper immigration, are those lines going to just zip along like crap through a goose? Nobody’s going to put their testicles on a block and say so. No, it’s always the one-sided argument…”don’t do this or the lines will take too long.”

That’s like saying, don’t drive your car too much or the summer weather is going to be hot. No shit, Sherlock. How hot will the weather be if we don’t drive? Every bit as hot…and you don’t want people to think about that, do you.

Be that as it may. It always pays to watch the watchers…and you know, even from where I sit James F.’s record is far from perfect. So this is a lefty-blog worth taking a gander at now and then.

Memo For File XIV

While doing some cursory research for the previous post, I came across three things I thought were kind of cool.

A post from spring of 2005 describing how the left-wingers were about to come after the blogosphere in the name of “diversity”; including this classic line:

Ah, the diversity cult is coming after the most free (and I mean free-don’t cost ‘nut’n), open, and painfully full of feedback public areas ever created, The Blogosphere.

Good gracious, no one here cares what or who you are, but what you say. The whole diversity racket is so 1970s anyway. [emphasis mine]

This one has to go to the sidebar.

This other one is called Horsefeathers. Has some pretty original thinking going on, based on stuff you can’t pick up without a rich knowledge of history. Like this thing:

During World War II, Operation Bodyguard was the overall Allied strategic deception plan in Europe for 1944, carried out as part of the build-up to the invasion of Normandy. The major objective of this plan was to lead the Germans to believe that the invasion of northwestern Europe would come later than was actually planned, and to threaten attacks at other locations than the true objective, including the Pas de Calais, the Balkans, southern France, Norway, and Soviet attacks in Bulgaria and northern Norway.

The name ‘Bodyguard’ was derived from a comment by Winston Churchill to Stalin at the Tehran Conference in 1943, saying, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

Cool stuff. Obviously, worth reading. To the sidebar it goes.

Finally, I found this Slate article that was published right after President Bush’s re-election. Poor little blue girl living in a red state, whines about the smackdown she got the night before. This is stunning. Read…

Why Americans Hate Democrats � A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
By Jane Smiley
Updated Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, at 6:24 PM ET

…The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million�my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.) [emphasis mine]

Amazing, isn’t it? We’re smart; those other guys are ignorant; they have classic feelings of superiority. They do. All in one breath.

Impressive. No wonder here it is, nearly two years later, and this column still neatly captures the reason the Democrats are about to get their asses kicked one more time. Twenty months they’ve had to explain why we made the wrong decision, and all they can say is “You’re stuuuuuupid…! (and smug too.)”

It reminds me of that classic bumper sticker…”those of you who think you know everything are exceedingly annoying to those of us who really do.”

Women Hardest Hit

The campaign to scare the dickens out of people over the next ice age global warming climate change has again starkly insulted my faculties for critical thinking. What else is new. Well, actually, there is something new. You heard this joke, didn’t you?

Disgusted by what he has seen on earth, God decides to destroy it and start over.

He orders one of His angels to appear at the offices of four of America’s leading
newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, the SF Chronicle, the Washington Post and
the New York Times, in order to give them the scoop that He intends to destroy
the world in 2 days time.

The next morning, the following headlines appear:

Wall Street Journal: GOD TO DESTROY THE WORLD TOMORROW!! MARKETS WILL CLOSE EARLY!

SF Chronicle: GOD TO END WORLD TOMORROW!! ANTI-RELIGIOUS PROTESTS PLANNED. ACLU TO SUE GOD!!

Washington Post: END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND, GOD SAYS!! SEE ARTICLE ON PAGE 12-B.

New York Times: GOD VOWS DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH!! WOMEN, CHILDREN AND MINORITIES TO BE HARDEST HIT!!

Every now and then you see evidence that this last punchline, isn’t really a joke. It’s reality. Well, this is one of those times.

If climate change predictions by researchers at the University of Toronto prove to be right, low-lying Bangladesh will suffer some of the worst effects of global warming. Already, about a fifth of the country is flooded annually. As temperatures and sea levels rise, flooding may increase up to 40 percent.

For Bangladeshi women, this is particularly bad news. In some past floods–such as in April 1991 following a Category 4 cyclone–the death rate for women was five times that of men.

Now, prostate cancer aside, when’s the last time you saw something being played up as a bad potential disaster because, if it should come to pass, men would be hardest hit?

You never see it. Doesn’t anyone ever stop to think why this is? Men aren’t exactly like cockroaches you know. We’re fragile; compared to women, in a lot of ways we’re fragile. We’re top-heavy. We jump, with parachutes and bungee cords. The actuarial tables confirm that time has a more harmful affect on us than it does on our counterparts. We store fat in our “love handles” to live off it in the lean times; our ass cheeks, and thighs, don’t play much of a part of this process. In sum, we aren’t constructed to have someone else live inside our bodies, and in so doing be protected from harm. We’re beasts of burden. You might say the male of the species is built to fall apart.

So there must be a lot of calamities out there that will hit men the hardest. How come it is we never hear about them?

It’s marketing, that’s why. If I’m a woman, I see a news story that says “women hardest hit,” I want to buy that newspaper and learn as much as I can. I’m a guy, though, so if I see a paper in a newsstand that says “men hardest hit” I’m much more likely to leave the quarters in my pocket, and walk on. Why is that?

Well, first the obvious. Quarters are money. I’m a cheapass.

Also, I’m Superman. Nothing hurts me. You say something comes along that will hurt men; well, it’s hardly a given that it’s going to hurt me.

I don’t feel any special kinship with other men. Let’s say I’m going to meet some other guy, someone who is a complete stranger to me, someone I don’t know. What am I to assume about this guy? He could be a nice guy, but it’s equally likely he’s an asshole. Men understand this about other men. We spend half our waking lives driving on the roads with other men, flicking each other off. Women seem to labor under this universal premise that all other women are part of a special Virtual Union, and they are honor-bound to protect other womens’ interests.

So this is marketing, and we’re slow to realize it because to understand the effect of the marketing, you have to acknowledge that men and women are different and they’re built by design to behave differently. We don’t like to acknowledge that. And yet, there has to be a discrepancy somewhere, because as I discussed above nothing ever seems to deal a tougher blow to the men. It’s always the women.

Yeah, you know, we’re talking about water coming up and drowning people. Women hardest hit? Women are more bouyant. So what’re you talking about?

Frisch STWF’d

Thing I Know #54. Find me ten men who will argue with me about something, and I’ll show you one man who has something to tell me, and nine jackasses who are just showing off for someone else.

Okay, I’ll acknowledge it happened. University of Arizona Adjunct Psychology Instructor Deborah Frisch has resigned her position to Spend Time With The Family. Here at The Blog Nobody Reads, we call that getting STWF’d. And we continue to use that verb here, even though there’s no suggestion that this has anything to do with a family, and…a much more popular word is on the way to being developed…

When I�m done with you, Deb, you�re going to be an internet verb.

Thus sayeth Jeff Goldstein, proprietor of Protein Wisdom, to his antagonist Dr. Frisch. The thread from which this comment is peeled, is, to date, the best one-stop-shopping spot from which one can view the entire sorry spew of drivel from the good Professor. Clearly, with regard to TIK #54, above, Frisch is one of the nine jackasses.

I�d like to hear more about your �tyke� by the way. Girl? Boy? Toddler? Teen? Are you still married to the woman you ephed to give birth to the tyke?

Tell all, bro!

And

[…] as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your �tyke� it wouldn�t slow me down one iota. You aren�t �human� to me.

[…]

So if you could just tell me the AGE and SEX of your �tyke,� I�d be stoked!

Thanx!

And

Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby.

Are you still married to the woman you humped to produce the toddler?

And

I reiterate: If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn�t give a damn.

And

Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me! LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don�t mind!

Somehow, Jeffy boy, I think you get off on the possibility of Frenching your pathetic progeny, even if it is a boy. You seem like a VERY, VERY sick mofo to me, bro.

And

You know, Jeff, I just don�t get it. You say, and I believe you, that a human female chose to procreate with you and you have produced a 2 year old progeny.

But you live in Colorado and I really can�t believe there are women desperate and/or stupid enough to procreate with the likes of you.

What am I missing, dude?

So the poor bitch is dirt poor and that�s why she pretended you were worthy of procreating with?

And

Just my two cents: The pathetic jeffy boy goldstein plays the jew card 24/7. Didn�t you notice?

THIS IS A CESSPOOL!!! GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN!!!!

JEFF!!! DRINK THE KOOLAID AND LET YOUR WIFE RAISE THE little Goldstein Junior!

And

I am SHAKING, I tell you, SHAKING!!! in my boots at the prosect at an FBI and/or state police trooper tromping down my driveway to see if I was a threat to the progeny of the pissant name of Jeff �pissant� Goldstein of the pathetic, neutered, sissified, state of Colorado. I don�t give a rat�s ass whether the pissant�s progeny live or die, but I have no intention of snuffing the mofo�s chillen myself.

And

Still waiting for some words of wisdom (NOT!) from you, Jeffy boy!

Your little boot-lickers have had their say. What say you, king dingbat?!

Wanna escalate this game. Fine wit me.

Bring it on, hombre.

Bring it on.

This is endemic within the left. I’m not referring to the nasty comments, or the unconstructive comments, or the posturing or the name-calling. I’m referring to the quantity. The density, on a per-hundred-words basis. It’s competitive.

Being the author of TIK #54, I have seen my share of this stuff flying my way. It’s not that I didn’t have it coming, or at least, didn’t provoke it. But the two-line spittle-flinging manifesto impresses me as something that is put together to head off criticism not from me, or from people inclined to agree with me, but from people inclined to agree with them. Like they’re anticipating someone will write in with something like this…

Dude,

I was contaminating my eyeballs with that chocolate streak of a blog House of Eratosthenes by that pukebrain “mkfreeberg” or whatever, and I saw how you put him in his place. Kudos, man. But the thing of it is, in that one-liner you got in, you insulted him fifteen times. He had at least sixteen coming. Anything less than that is unacceptable. Sorry pal, but I’m going to have to report you at next Thursday’s moonbat meeting. I hear they just bought a new paddle. Wear yer iron shorts.

Or, you know, some variation of the above. That seems to be the concern that takes a back seat to none other. Coherently communicating a thought…that’s a distant second.

That has become just a rote process.

Another rote process, is to act like a victim when there are consequences involved. Quoth Professor Frisch on the whole experience…

I have resigned from the University of Arizona so there is no need for other enraged people to write to administrators there. I am a temporary worker there and I am in Oregon for the summer.

Some blogs have posted comments that I perceive to be physically threatening. I have contacted the FBI and the Pajamas Media staff to determine how to proceed with this aspect of this unbelievable experience.

My intention in this post is to de-escalate the situation. The comments that started this all were nasty, not threatening. But I feel very threatened by the response.

Jeff – I lost my job. You won. Could you call off the troops?

UPDATE: I have been receiving emails alluding to the fact that I got fired. I was not fired. I resigned. I was not pressured to resign. I just sent my boss an email explaining what was happening and told him I thought it was best for all involved if I resigned.

Frisch goes on with a reference to people “posting snippets of what I posted that have been embellished with references to french kissing and other things I didn’t say.” This places the conversation within the realm of dipute…or it would, if Frisch would only be more specific about the “other things I didn’t say.” Rather convenient that she did not, since this has the effect of calling every word into dispute, without her actually disputing any of it.

Yeah…thanks, I’ll let everybody else make up their own mind, as usual, but for myself I’ll regard the snippets above as accurate. Just my opinion.

Former Professor Frisch, you are a very nasty woman when you want to be. Your judgment is poor. What were you thinking? Another thing…

“I was not fired. I resigned. I was not pressured to resign. I just sent my boss an email explaining what was happening and told him I thought it was best for all involved if I resigned.” This is a direct contradiction with “Jeff – I lost my job. You won.”

There is an effort underway to convince the public-at-large that something terribly unfair is being done to liberal moonbats in general, since this makes them look like a bunch of psychopaths. The ingredients in this Frisch Stew are quite nasty, but as I said above, none of them are isolated. The squeeze-as-many-insults-into-each-sentence-as-possible, the babbling incoherence, the inconsistent statements that bely a complete apathy toward what is true and what isn’t, the breakneck snap-around from “I’m big, I’m bad, bring it on” to “why you kicking a dead horse, leave me alone you already won you big bully.”

Why am I being commanded to believe, that these aren’t intrinsic attributes to left-wing diatribes? Or that if they are, then that the right-wing diatribes must be equally tainted? This has not been my personal experience.

Update: Hey, here’s a great example of what I’m talking about. The whole experience discussed above is bottom-lined by someone more inclined to agree with Dr. Frisch than with Goldstein or me. Now look at that post. Just look at it. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…lots of information about what you’re supposed to think. No raw data, none at all. My post leads with the raw data, and then I tell you my own thoughts and why I have them. (Other conservative commentators at least link to the raw data, or pieces of it.)

Pay attention when you read blogs, both lefty-loosie and tighty-rightie. You’ll start to pick up on this pattern. I’m not going to sit here and type in some codswallop to the effect that this is an absolute, since real life has very few of those. But the pattern does hold up pretty consistently.

Memo For File XIII

I like the way this guy writes.

So I piled into my SUV (an Escalade) and headed to the theater. It’s actually pretty far, but thanks to four wheel drive, I was able to take a short cut! Which was great because I couldn’t wait to settle myself in for what would be an incredibly enlightening and worthy cinematic experience! But like I always do when i sit in a theater with my arm around a complete stranger and my pants loosely buckled, my thoughts begin to wander. And they wandered toward a few “inconvenient truths” I had of my own about the movie, about Al Gore, and about all of you, my dear Huffpo brethren.

-the left refuses to believe that the biggest threat to mankind isn’t man’s destruction of the planet, but ideology-based envy-driven homicidal maniacs who kill their own people for selling ice and falafel on the street. Granted, I hate falafel (it’s fal-awful!), but that’s no reason to behead someone. Cut off a hand – I can live with that.

-the reason why the left cannot agree that terrorism and islamic fundamentalism are the real threat is because to do so would force them to agree with George Bush. This is a horrifying thought, since for them Bush is a far bigger enemy than the soulful types who fly planes into buildings. People who fly planes into buildings are simply misunderstood, and it’s America’s fault for not understanding them. This makes me feel sad! Being misunderstood is hurtful. I would fly a plane into a building too, if I wasn’t so scared of flying. And buildings.

Now granted, he’s showing some healthy skepticism about something which has already received a lot of healthy skepticism, namely, the idea that man’s rough treatment of the environment has shoved us right up to the brink of global damnation, and now that the human race is almost at the point of no-turning-back, the thing to do is to make a movie and then promote it on talk shows while chortling at lame jokes.

But healthy skepticism is a good thing. We need more of it. You know, healthy skepticism about something besides the tired ol’ George Bush War on Terror Oil Industry Saudi Arabian Halliburton Connection Gore Florida blah blah blah.

And I like the way this guy links to the guy above. Thought I should bookmark his blog. It’s got some interesting stuff that isn’t discussed elsewhere. And I like Delaware. So he’s headed to the sidebar.

Go Easy On Him

On the subject of Warren Buffet bequeathing his billions of dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, for the express purpose of avoiding the death tax. Which Buffet favors, with a passion, by the way.

My comments to the liberal blogger who is headed to my sidebar, the CEO And Chief Bottle Washer of Reason Reigns. He has submitted a comment in our brief (so far) exchange. A comment fairly riddled with holes. His comment consists of more hole, than stuff in which to make a hole. Begging for a good smackdown, he is.

Here is a transcript of the original post, plus our comments.

Buffett’s Billions
US billionaires try to explain giveaway

At least some people “get it”.

This news as the estate tax is under attack by the neocons who portray it as theft. Buffett supports the estate tax for its role in emphasizing merit over inheritance as the means for advancing in American society:

Buffett said he wanted to avoid “dynastic inheritance,” where people born into wealthy families get unfair head starts over the less fortunate.

Buffett said his children control the other foundations to get the stock, but he will not leave them “huge amounts” for their personal use. He said his philosophy is “that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing.”

If you believe in capitalism, you believe in the market rewarding innovation, creativity and hard work… Brats running around spending the millions their parents accrued while contributing next-to-nothing don’t fit that model.
——————

…that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing.

I agree completely. If I’m fortunate enough to put together the kind of personal fortune Warren Buffet has, I’m going to leave enough of it for my kids that they can do anything but not enough that they can sit around doing nothing.

I fail, and not just a little bit, I fail entirely, to see what this has to do with the Government. What is their stake in this? Nobody has yet explained this to my satisfaction. Ever.

Posted by mkfreeberg | 7:12 AM
——————
Well, government is the agent that protects us and our freedoms.

Wealth represents power… wealth in and of itself is not a bad thing — but in our society wealth buys power.

I also believe in the free-market. Ideas, products, services, etc. are supposedly judged on their merit. Allowing corporations/people with VAST resources to squelch ideas is anti-free market. We’ve seen this behavior before: it was called the age of the Robber Barons. Such circumstances are the natural result of capitalism in an unregulated marketplace.

I believe government has a role in leveling the playing field � to get closer to the idea that “all men are created equal”. In our society the individual�s “financial birthplace” is about the biggest factor in determining success/failure. Your “class” correlates very closely with the level of education and success you have in life.

If government doesn�t regulate this — who will?

Posted by Reign of Reason | 8:54 AM

Okay, kiddies. Reign of Reason is wrong, but he isn’t just wrong and nothing more. He is wrong, like, six times, about six different things.

Half a dozen things. He got ’em wrong. They are big, glaring defects in logic, and I’ve got them stored on my Palm Pilot. I won’t upload them here, not yet. You take a stab at them first.

What did he get wrong? Enter comments below.

Why There Are No Libertarians In Congress

“Your taste is in your ass.”

The older I get, the less patience I have with women, especially with fickle women. And with the exception of the naive days of my extreme youth, when women dumped me far more often and I lapped up the abuse and begged for more, the above six words pretty much capture the extent of my parting words to those who found me tiresome. Maybe a seventh word: “Bye.” Maybe an extra five words of “have a nice life.”

The older I get, the more I know I’m worth having. I wear out my welcome with women who have limited attention spans. But who the hell needs ’em? These are not people who have actually accomplished much of anything…ever. So I don’t have a lot to say to women who demonstrate their extremely poor judgment, and taste in men, by stooping to the level of picking someone else over me. There’s very little to be said. And you know what? Ever since I picked up that attitude, the situation just doesn’t come up that often. Practically never. A man who knows what he’s worth, in spite of everything, is highly attractive to a woman. Intoxicating.

But I’m a flesh-and-blood guy. A real guy. Whereas, Hank Rearden, the antihero of Atlas Shrugged, a fictional character, once dumped by his extramarital sweetheart Dagny Taggart, tells her at the top of page 785 “Will you let me speak first? You see, it’s something I should have said to you long ago. Will you let me speak and not answer me until I finish?”

She nodded. Ooh…Dagny, sweetheart. Bad move. Bad, bad move.

Blah blah blah blah blah…this is microprint, now, five, perhaps six hundred words on each page. Blah blah blah…at the top of page 787, he manages to cram all this in, pregnant-woman style, no periods.

But if the body is evil, then so are those who provide the means of its survival, so is material wealth and those who produce it — and if moral values are set in contradiction to our physical existence, then it’s right that rewards should be unearned, that virtue should consist of the undone, that there should be no tie between achievement and profit, that the inferior animals who’re able to produce should serve those superior beings whose superiority in spirit consists of incompetence in the flesh.

Steel magnate Hank Rearden finally sputters to a stop at the bottom of page 788. That’s in the neighborhood of two thousand words. Two thousand words for some strumpet who’s decide some other guy cleans her pipes better than poor Henry.

This is about the time a decent friend would lean in and say “Hank old buddy, I think I got an idea why you might have lost your luster in her eyes, it’s got something to do with something called brevity.” But that is not to be. John Galt, Ayn Rand’s vision of the perfect man, the dude whose baby-batter is trickling down the inside of Dagny’s thighs while she’s listening to this endless epistle…is, himself, the author of a manifesto that begins on page 923 and doesn’t conclude until 979. Oh yes, I’m as serious as a heart attack. Page after page after page…that’s all John Galt speaking. On the radio. Telling everybody what’s what and what-for and where they all done wrong, and why they all suck so much. Thirty-thousand freakin’ words, plus some.

Still, I have to say, the book is a must-read. Does it have to be 1,069 pages? Honestly, I have to say no. Six hundred of those pages, easily, are nothing but therapy for the author, therapy she probably would not have needed if she had simply remained faithful to her husband. In fact, if you were to tell me someone managed to chisel it down to 300 pages…250…225…and kept the important aspects of the story intact, I would not be terribly surprised.

This is why there are no Libertarians in Congress. The building catches fire and you ask an Ayn Rand Objectivist-type to put it out, you get a 1,500-word thesis about how the Men of the Mind are the source of everything that is good, and the Moochers and the Looters are the source of everything bad, and maybe the fire should be allowed to burn, assuming it really does exist in the first place.

But what unbelievably good points there are in the novel. You’re missing something if you haven’t read it. Something you will not successfully pick up from anywhere else.

Attention Whore

The smarmy title of this post is intended as a reflection upon myself, not on the lovely Miss Cellania. Be that as it may, I was perusing her random thoughts and I came across the tweaked photorepresentation of Times Square you see to the left. Well, I just couldn’t leave that one alone. There’s something about going out of one’s way to be egotistical. I know I’m supposed to condemn such behavior, but at the same time, you have to sit back and admire it when there is creativity involved. It’s like…you know, kind of like watching your classmate put a tack on the teacher’s chair. Except relatively harmless compared to that. You have to give up the golf clap. You feel dirty, but you do.

And yet, admiration alone, didn’t seem like enough. This was a challenge, a challenge to be met. No…surpassed. So I looked around. What did I have, what did I have.

And then I found it.

A few minutes of toiling later, some simple math…and as the saying goes. Look at me! I’m an attention whore!

I’m also a plagiarist. What the hell, I only steal the good ideas.

The day after I made a good-faith attempt to capture what it means to be a liberal, along comes Sen. Joe Biden to show me up. My attempt yesterday was to just hit some of the high points, not to provide a complete encyclopedic coverage of the subject, but nevertheless the Senior Senator from Delaware shows me I left out something so important, that backtracking is compulsory. So backtrack I shall.

First just watch the video, those of you who have not already, I’ll wait right here. Dum de dum de dum…hmmm hmmm hmmm…

Back yet? Okay, two things, one already much-discussed, one not quite yet. Not to the best of my knowledge.

First the one that other people have already kicked around. Biden doesn’t need to answer to anybody here. He has nothing for which to atone, because he is a Democrat. If he were a Republican, we would have a scandal. And not just a little itty-bitty scandal, either. A full-blown one. The Republican scandal would change overnight what the 2006 election is all about, I daresay. Those darn Republicans, they think Indians aren’t fit to do anything except run Dunkin’ Donuts. No, that won’t be happening. Biden gets a pass. The idea is proposed through action, not words — since the idea doesn’t make enough sense to be articulated outright — that Democrats are drawing on a huge reserve of propaganda capital that they deposted clear back in the sixties with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Liberties Act. So they get to make racist cracks without being overdrawn, whereas Republicans, well, they’re supposed to be still digging out of some kind of deficit.

Is that fair? Is that right? Does it serve the sensitivities and needs of the minorities who are supposed to be offended? No, no, and no. And yet, does anybody even question this situation anymore? No. Deep down, we all know the horrified breath-sucking about this racist slur, or that quasi-racist gaffe, is all about political weaponry, nothing more. When Democrats step in it, it doesn’t count. Right-wing talk-radio hosts and right-wing bloggers say it out loud…but everybody knows it.

Okay, that’s been covered.

Now on to what I’d like to notice. Did you see that look on his face as soon as the last syllable escaped his lips, that look of “oh golly, maybe I shouldn’t have said that?” Neither did I. He thought he was really doing something clever here. He thought he was really handing it to that Delaware East Indian community, congratulating them, above and beyond what was called for. Boy, they really owe him now. Biden stopped everything in his busy schedule, and made the effort to notice their accomplishments.

And if you’re wondering what accomplishment that is, just watch the video again. The accomplishment of being plentiful. That’s what I want to address. What human achievement means to a liberal. The achievement of becoming numerous. Like an Indian is put on earth to do nothing that some stupid fish couldn’t do.

Admit it, when is the last time you heard of a liberal Democrat congratulating someone on doing anything else? Someone whose last name isn’t Kennedy or Carter or Clinton. No, the rest of us are here to breed, and we’re to be congratulated when we take the group of which we are a part, and give that group a higher notch on some kind of demographic table. Unless that group is Republicans, of course.

Now this is outside of what I mentioned yesterday, but some parts of it do overlap with what I was saying. It goes back to living day-to-day just being free of concern about anything, versus, living day-to-day trying to get something done that isn’t quite done yet. We do not owe anything in our lives to those among our anscestors who managed to stay carefree about things; we don’t owe anything to those who went from cradle to grave without worrying. We really don’t owe anything to those who took their ethnic group, and overbred and overimmigrated until the quantity of that ethnic group was pegged in a chart somewhere.

We owe what we have, to people who had misgivings about the status quo, and labored until something dissatisfying to them was made satisfying. The video camera that captured Biden’s absent-minded racist drivel, was invented by someone like that. The “innernets” that carry it to you, likewise, was built by people like that. The video codec was developed by someone like that.

But our liberals don’t want anybody thinking the way those people thought, ever again. Just hunker down, go about your daily routine, and don’t worry about anything. Breed, bring your family over from your country of origin in much larger numbers, and vote for us. You East Indians who have made real contributions in engineering and medicine, we’ve got nothing to say to you.

Update 7/15/06: This is Installment 2 of 3. The first installment is here and the third installment is here.

Memo For File XII

I “did a Google” for the transcript of one of my favorite attack ads by Rush Limbaugh against the Democratic party. Stumbled across the website of this guy, who is reciting the transcript. He’s not giving credit…I dunno, maybe that’s not cool, but I’m not a Rush Limbaugh cop. I’m just glad to find it.

I’d really like to know why something more isn’t made of this. It seems a truism of life that if you hold yourself up as crusading for something, and you won’t say what that something is, you leave it up to other people to define it. Nature abhores a vacuum and all that. Well in the absence of Democrats coming out and telling us what they want done, we’re left having to figure it out for ourselves…and this hits home, at least, to me.

-I helped scare an old person.
-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money.
-So what if people want to have a say in the places they live and the cars that they drive?
-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependent on foreign oil.
-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don�t matter.
-What if one day I need an abortion?
-Sex with an intern? Everybody does it.
-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong.
The Democratic Party: Do you know what they stand for?

I’ve listened to my share of Rush satire PSA’s. I think this one takes the cake. Says stuff that needs to be said, consistent with the truth, leaves big gaping unanswered questions that leave people awake at night, or at least should.

The blogger linked above is worth linking and has some stuff that’s worth reading. He’s seeking to answer a question from an acquaintance of his, also out in Minnesota, who is also running a blog worth reading, I think.

That blogger, in turn, points us to a website chronicling incidents of Democrat meanness, and also to the blog of yet another ravishing sexy woman who is conservative. Also in Minnesota. The title of her blog suggests to me that I had made a mental note to add her before, and forgot.